Megna & anor v Marshall & anor [2005] NSWSC 1302

Because there was no positive evidence of risk of dissipation of Mr Tory's assets and Mr Marshall failed to offer an undertaking as to damages, the evidence did not warrant the making of an asset preservation order against Mr Tory.

Parties: Plaintiff: Michael Megna; First Defendant: David John Marshall; Second Defendant: Richard Martin Tory
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 November 2005
Procedural Posture: Civil / Ex Tempore Judgment on Asset Preservation Order Motions Following S 7 a Defamation Trial
Outcome: Mr Marshall's motion for asset preservation order dismissed with costs; Mr Tory's motion adjourned to 22 November 2005.
Legal Topics: Asset Preservation Orders, Injunctions, Defamation Proceedings, Contribution Claims

Equity Defamation Asset Preservation Orders Injunctions Defamation Proceedings Contribution Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

Michael Megna

Plaintiff

David John Marshall

First Defendant

Richard Martin Tory

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ex Tempore Judgment on Asset Preservation Order Motions Following S 7 a Defamation Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether an asset preservation order should be granted against the second defendant, Mr Tory, upon the application of the first defendant, Mr Marshall
2 Whether there is sufficient risk of dissipation of assets by Mr Tory to warrant an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Mr Marshall's motion for asset preservation order dismissed with costs; Mr Tory's motion adjourned to 22 November 2005.

Orders

Mr Marshall's motion filed 14 November 2005 dismissed with costs.
Mr Tory's motion filed 14 November 2005 adjourned to 22 November 2005.